^ /EOT 

r*n. 

S.  AMER. 


International  Conciliation 

Published  monthly  by  the 

American  Association  for  International  Conciliation 
Entered  as  second  class  matter  at  New  York,  N.  Y. 

Postoffice,  February  23,  1909,  underact  of  July  16, 1891 


CONCILIATION  THROUGH  COMMERCE  AND 
INDUSTRY  IN  SOUTH  AMERICA 


BY 

CHARLES  M.  PEPPER 

Commercial  Adviser,  Department  of  State,  Washington,  D.  C. 

SEPTEMBER,  1910,  No.  34 

American  Association  for  International  Conciliation 
Sub-station  84  (501  West  II  6th  Street) 

New  York  City 


The  Executive  Committee  of  the  Association 
for  International  Conciliation  wish  to  arouse  the 
interest  of  the  American  people  in  the  progress  of 
the  movement  for  promoting  international  peace 
and  relations  of  comity  and  good  fellowship 
between  nations.  To  this  end  they  print  and 
circulate  documents  giving  information  as  to  the 
progress  of  these  movements,  in  order  that 
individual  citizens,  the  newspaper  press,  and 
organizations  of  various  kinds  may  have  readily 
available  accurate  information  on  these  subjects. 

For  the  information  of  those  who  are  not  familiar 
with  the  work  of  the  Association  for  International 
Conciliation,  a list  of  its  publications  will  be 
found  on  page  13. 


CONCILIATION  THROUGH  COMMERCE  AND 
INDUSTRY  IN  SOUTH  AMERICA 


The  international  commerce  of  South  America  today 
exceeds  $1,500,000,000  annually.  The  most  of  this 
is  foreign  commerce  as  distinguished  from  inter-South 
American  commerce,  or  trade  between  the  different 
countries  of  the  southern  continent.  Both,  however, 
make  for  conciliation  in  adjusting  differences  that 
arise  among  the  different  Republics.  Commercial 
peace  means  international  peace. 

A review  of  the  political  and  diplomatic  relations  of 
the  various  republics  of  South  America  shows  that 
they  have  worked  out  vexatious  disputes  and  con- 
troversies fully  as  satisfactorily  as  have  European 
nations.  The  legacy  which  all  South  America  received 
from  the  Spanish  and  Portuguese  colonial  eras  was  one 
of  the  undetermined  boundaries  which  were  often 
indefinable.  The  doctrine  of  uti  possidetis  was  inter- 
preted by  every  South  American  country  as  seemed 
best  to  conserve  its  own  interests.  “To  hold  and 
possess  ” often  meant  only  constructive  occupation  of 
unknown  territory.  “Wherever  in  possession  ” meant 
in  possession  of  the  fringe  of  vast  stretches  of  land. 
There  are  sections  of  the  interior  of  this  great  con- 
tinent which  yet  appear  on  world  maps  as  unknown, 
though  recent  explorations  have  served  to  give  some 
general  knowledge  of  them.  This  knowledge,  how- 
ever, is  not  exact  enough  to  enable  all  questions  of 
undefined  boundries  to  be  settled  offhand. 


3 


The  great  river  systems,  the  Amazon  and  the  Plate, 
still  tap  territory  whose  economic  value  is  better 
understood  than  its  geographical  extension.  It  is  not 
unnatural,  therefore,  that  the  countries  whose  interests 
are  affected  should  make  the  broadest  claims  for 
themselves  and  should  seek  to  secure  their  full  propor- 
tion of  the  commerce  of  the  future  by  making  these 
claims.  The  historic  fact  is,  however,  that  assertions 
of  paper  rights  regarding  the  bounds  and  limits  of 
commerce  have  caused  few  of  the  wars  that  have 
taken  place  among  the  South  American  republics. 
This  commerce,  while  in  one  sense  a provocation  to 
war,  or  what  would  be  considered  a provocation  by  a 
European  nation  given  to  trade,  has  more  often 
proved  a means  of  conciliation.  Fortunately,  ques- 
tions of  limits  do  not  usually  merge  into  questions  of 
national  honor  and  the  most  high-strung  people  can 
reach  a means  of  determining  such  issues  peaceably. 

The  record  of  boundary  disputes  in  South  America 
which  have  been  settled  by  arbitration  is  a long  one. 
In  every  case  it  has  been  noted  that  the  development 
of  domestic  industry  and  neighborhood  and  foreign 
commerce  follows  such  settlement.  The  ebullitions 
and  effervescence  of  an  excitable  people  when  a dis- 
pute arises  or  when  an  arbitral  decision  is  given 
adverse  to  their  claim,  have  not  proven  to  be  the 
deliberate  act  of  responsible  governments.  It  will  be 
found  that  in  the  majority  of  cases  the  various  govern- 
ments, while  not  able  to  check  immediately  these 
exhibitions  of  popular  sentiment,  or  popular  bad 
temper,  have  been  able  to  divert  them  into  harmless 
channels  while  they  have  proceeded  with  dignified 
negotiations  and  a real  sense  of  their  responsibility. 


4 


Rumors  of  wars  in  Latin  American  countries  get 
sensational  headlines  in  the  newspapers;  no  thought' 
is  given  to  the  failure  of  the  rumors  to  be  verified. 
The  facts  of  industrial  progress  and  commercial 
advancement  are  not  sensational;  no  excitement  is 
caused  by  them  and  they  pass  unnoticed,  yet  all  the 
time  they  are  doing  their  beneficient  work  in  promoting 
peace. 

Latin  Americans’  fondness  for  abstractions  has  fre- 
quently caused  results  to  be  overlooked.  Often  com- 
prehensive declarations  of  adhesion  to  the  theoretic 
principles  of  arbitration  have  been  made  without 
having  been  put  into  effect,  but  when  the  practical 
principle  involved  in  trade  and  industry  was  clearly  at 
stake  usually  it  has  proved  a means  of  conciliation. 

Argentina’s  $700,000,000  foreign  commerce  today 
makes  strongly  for  peace.  The  world  at  large  cannot 
well  afford  to  have  Argentina’s  wheat  lands  and  pas- 
tures interfered  with.  Food  is  becoming  too  precious. 
The  enormous  sums  of  European  capital,  especially 
British  capital,  invested  in  the  Argentine  railways  are 
a potent  argument  for  maintaining  peace  in  so  far  as 
the  countries  neighboring  to  the  Argentine  Republic 
are  concerned. 

Adjustment  of  the  boundry  between  Argentina  and 
Chile  in  1898  was  one  of  the  most  effective  means  of 
securing  South  American  tranquillity  at  a critical 
period  and  back  of  the  agencies  which  secured  tran- 
quillity was  the  legitimate  influence  of  capital  invested 
in  commerce.  European  investments  in  Chile  and 
Argentina  were  too  great  to  permit  those  two  pro- 
gressive nations  to  go  to  war.  The  sequel  of  that 
friendly  adjustment  has  just  been  realized.  So  long 


5 


as  the  boundaries  were  unsettled  and  there  was  mutual 
jealousy,  neither  country  was  anxious  to  pierce  the 
natural  barrier  which  the  Andes  mountain  wall  forms 
between  them.  After  this  settlement  was  made  the 
enterprise  that  had  been  merely  an  aspiration  for  half 
a century  was  undertaken  seriously.  The  result  is 
the  trans-Andine  tunnel  which  has  recently  been 
opened.  It  joins  Buenos  Aires  with  Valparaiso  by  a 
through  railway  line.  The  inter-commerce  of  the  two 
countries  was  a leading  consideration  in  building  this 
railway  tunnel  which  means  so  much  for  their  future 
friendly  relations.  It  gave  the  basis  on  which  the 
Chilean  Government  could  guarantee  capital  for  an 
enterprise  that  would  develop  trade  and  industry  and 
that  had  therefore  a practical  as  well  as  a sentimental 
side. 

Another  instance  of  the  value  of  commerce  as  an 
instrument  of  conciliation  was  the  settlement  by  Brazil 
and  Bolivia  of  the  controversy  over  the  Acre  rubber 
territory.  Both  countries,  under  the  decrees  of  the 
Spanish  and  Portuguese  Crowns  in  the  colonial  era, 
laid  claim  to  this  region  of  which  so  little  was  known 
and  both  sides  could  support  their  claims  by  historical 
references.  While  the  dispute  was  pending  there 
could  be  no  exploitation  of  the  resources  of  the  terri- 
tory although  the  world  was  demanding  the  rubber 
which  was  there.  Brazil  and  Bolivia,  by  the  Treaty  of 
Petropolis,  settled  this  question  without  even  resorting 
to  the  arbitration  of  a third  party.  Under  it  Bolivia 
accepted  an  indemnity  of  $10,000,0000  for  the  district 
she  claimed.  This  indemnity  was  to  be  applied  to 
railway  construction.  Brazil,  on  her  part,  undertook 
to  build  a railroad  around  the  Madeira  Falls  which 


6 


would  offer  an  Atlantic  outlet  and  inlet  to  the  com- 
merce of  a large  section  of  Bolivia.  This  enterprise, 
the  importance  of  which  has  been  fully  recognized  for 
half  a century  by  students  of  South  American  econom- 
ics and  resources,  had  been  attempted  several  times 
by  private  interests  and  had  met  with  failure  owing  to 
the  enormous  difficulties.  It  was  the  proper  project 
of  a progressive  government. 

The  $10,000,000  which  Bolivia  obtained  was  cash 
capital  which  also  added  vastly  to  her  credit.  Instead 
of  borrowing  money  with  which  to  buy  war  material 
there  was  actual  money  to  spend  on  railway  material. 
With  it  the  construction  of  the  railway  systems-  which 
are  so  important  to  her  internal  development  was 
begun  and  is  now  going  forward  to  the  very  great 
benefit  of  the  trade  and  industry  of  the  country. 
Brazil,  on  her  part,  is  scrupulously  complying  with  the 
obligation  to  build  the  railway  around  the  Madeira 
Falls  and  in  another  two  years  this  great  work  of 
civilization  will  be  completed.  Its  influence  on  the 
commercial  future  of  a vast  region  is  incalculable.  In 
the  meantime  the  rubber  from  the  Acre  territory 
is  helping  to  supply  the  world’s  demand  for  this 
commodity. 

Free  navigation  of  the  great  rivers  of  the  South 
American  continent  is  essential  to  the  full  commercial 
development  of  all  the  contiguous  countries,  but  for 
nearly  a century  friction  between  adjoining  nations  and 
unfounded  fears  of  foreign  control  interfered  with  this 
development. 

The  negotiations  of  the  United  States  and  the  vari- 
ous European  countries  in  regard  to  the  Amazon  are 
familiar  chapters  in  the  international  controversies 


7 


over  the  rights  of  free  navigation  of  rivers.  The 
sound  doctrine  was  laid  down  in  a circular  of  the 
Peruvian  Foreign  Office  as  far  back  as  1853.  In  this 
circular  the  aspiration  was  for  the  adoption  of  a com- 
mercial policy  which  “should  reconcile  the  interests 
of  the  world  with  the  interests  and  rights  of  the  nations 
in  possession.”  The  commercial  policy  was  recognized 
as  the  basis  of  conciliation,  or  reconciliation,  between 
estranged  nations.  The  interests  of  the  world  in 
these  river  regions  of  South  America  have  grown 
immensely  because  of  their  present  and  prospective 
commerce,  and  yet  it  has  been  found  possible  to  recon- 
cile them  with  the  interests  and  rights  of  the  nations 
in  possession,  although  all  questions  have  not  been 
formally  settled. 

More  acute  has  been  the  question  of  reconciling  the 
interests  and  rights  of  the  nations  which  disputed 
possession  among  themselves.  Although  complete 
free  navigation  of  the  branches  and  tributaries  of  the 
Amazon  may  not  yet  be  fully  admitted,  the  neighboring 
countries  are  rapidly  reconciling  their  differences  in 
the  interest  of  a common  commerce.  The  latest  illus- 
tration of  this  spirit  of  conciliation  is  the  boundary 
treaty  of  September,  1909,  between  Brazil  and  Peru, 
relative  to  the  commerce  and  navigation  of  the  Amazon 
basin.  The  agreement  means  more  commerce  for 
both  countries 

Among  the  recent. instances  of  the  reconciliation  of 
the  claims  of  adjoining  countries  through  recognition 
of  the  commerce  involved  is  the  treaty  between  the 
Argentine  Republic  and  Uruguay.  Article  3 of  this 
treaty  provides  “that  the  navigation  and  use  of  the 
waters  of  the  river  Plate  will  continue  without  altera- 


tion  as  up  to  the  present  date,  and  whatever  differences 
may  arise  in  this  connection  will  be  removed  and 
resolved  in  the  same  spirit  of  cordiality  and  harmony 
which  has  always  existed  between  the  two  countries.” 
Uruguay  with  its  thriving  port  of  Montevideo  controls 
one  bank  of  the  Plate.  The  commerce  that  flows  past 
it  to  Buenos  Aires  and  other  Argentine  ports  and  back 
from  them  is  too  great  and  too  important  to  civilization 
for  it  to  be  at  the  mercy  of  warlike  settlement.  Here 
again  the  conciliation  of  two  distinct  national  interests 
is  through  commerce. 

The  recent  treaty  between  Brazil  and  Uruguay  is 
also  important  to  commerce  and  industry.  Brazil,  in 
order  to  exploit  the  vast  resources  of  her  great  interior 
states  of  Matto  Grosso  and  Goyaz  needs  free  transit 
up  the  Plate  and  its  tributaries.  Friendly  political  rela- 
tions are  the  corollary  of  friendly  commercial  relations. 

These  are  a few  of  the  many  instances  that  might 
be  given  which  show  how  the  reciprocal  commercial 
conditions  in  the  South  American  countries  are 
advanced  by  peaceful  settlement  of  their  boundary  and 
other  disputes.  The  interest  of  Europe  with  its  huge 
investments  of  capital  and  its  enjoyment  of  the  larger 
proportion  of  the  South  American  commerce  re- 
quires mention.  These  investments  now  approximate 
$3,500,000,000.  A vast  and  swelling  volume  of  trade 
depends  on  them.  They  are  a peace  fund. 

The  United  States  has  a special  relation  inde- 
pendent of  the  Monroe  Doctrine  which  heretofore 
has  been  interpreted  without  regard  to  trade.  Its 
commerce  with  South  America  is  approximating 
$300,000,000  annually.  This  is  not  large,  as  com- 
pared with  Europe,  but  the  commerce  is  a growing 


9 


one  and  this  growth  is  dependent  on  the  maintenance 
of  inter-South  American  peace.  North  American 
capitalists  are  interested  in  South  American  mines 
and  to  some  extent  in  railways,  and  the  establishment 
of  the  Pan-American  bank  which  will  help  the  expan- 
sion of  commerce  is  not  so  remote.  The  United 
States  is  pledged  to  the  encouragement  of  the  Pan- 
American  Railway  both  as  a measure  of  national  and 
international  or  intercontinental  policy.  This  project 
in  the  gradual  linking  up  of  different  sections  and 
countries  is  a powerful  promoter  of  the  inter-South 
American  commerce.  It  is  a material  force  that 
becomes  a moral  agency,  probably  the  greatest  single 
agency  now  at  work. 

Identity  of  interest  between  the  United  States  and 
the  South  American  countries  is  greater  than  ever 
before.  Our  commercial  policy  is  conciliatory  and 
whatever  tends  to  increase  the  commerce  is  an  addi- 
tional means  of  conciliation.  It  is  also  a reason  for 
judging  the  prospects  of  the  various  South  American 
countries  by  their  peaceful  progress  rather  than  by 
confusing  rumors  of  war  among  them,  especially  since 
so  few  of  these  rumors  are  ever  translated  into  actual 
hostilities. 

Commerce  with  the  South  American  countries  is  also 
an  educating  force.  Knowledge  of  their  political  in- 
stitutions, of  their  administrative  systems,  of  their 
economic  resources,  of  the  government  measures  to 
develop  these  resources,  is  essential  to  whoever  would 
profit  by  the  opportunities  that  are  offered  in  one 
of  the  most  inviting  fields  for  international  trade 
that  exists.  Such  knowledge  gives  an  insight  into  the 
South  American  viewpoint  and  consequently  modifies 


io 


the  North  American  viewpoint  which  is  so  often  preju- 
diced and  so  generally  ignorant  when  applied  to  Latin 
American  affairs. 

These  considerations  are  commercial,  but  not  mer- 
cenary. They  justify  the.  prominence  given  in  the 
program  of  the  Pan-American  Conference  at  Buenos 
Aires  to  commercial  statistics,  conservation  of  natural 
resources,  the  Pan-American  Railway,  steamship  com- 
munication, sanitary  regulations,  monetary  standards 
and  similar  subjects.  To  promote  commerce  with 
South  America  is  to  promote  peace  in  South  America. 

CHARLES  M.  PEPPER 

Washington,  August  20,  1910 


II 


PUBLICATIONS  OF  THE 

AMERICAN  ASSOCIATION  FOR  INTERNATIONAL  CONCILIATION 


1.  Program  of  the  Association,  Baron  d’Estournelles  de  Constant.  April,  1907. 

2.  Results  of  the  National  Arbitration  and  Peace  Congress,  by  Andrew  Car 
negie.  April,  1907. 

3.  A League  of  Peace,  by  Andrew  Carnegie.  November,  1907. 

4.  The  results  of  the  Second  Hague  Conference,  by  Baron  d’Estournelles  de 
Constant  and  Hon.  David  Jayne  Hill.  December,  1907. 

5.  The  Work  of  the  Second  Hague  Conference,  by  James  Brown  Scott. 
January,  1908. 

6.  Possibilities  of  Intellectual  Co-operation  Between  North  and  South 
America,  by  L.  S.  Rowe.  April,  1908. 

7.  America  and  Japan,  by  George  Trumbull  Ladd.  June,  1908. 

8.  The  Sanction  of  International  Law,  by  Elihu  Root.  July,  1908. 

9.  The  United  States  and  France,  by  Barrett  Wendell.  August,  1908. 

10.  The  Approach  of  the  Two  Americas,  by  Joaquim  Nabuco.  Septem- 
ber, 1908. 

11.  The  United  States  and  Canada,  by  J.  S.  Willison.  October,  1908. 

12.  1 he  Policy  of  the  United  States  and  Japan  in  the  Far  East.  November, 
1908. 

13.  European  Sobriety  in  the  Presence  of  the  Balkan  Crisis,  by  Charles 
Austin  Beard.  December,  1908. 

14.  The  Logic  ot  International  Co-operation,  by  F.  W.  Hirst.  January,  1909. 

15.  American  Ignorance  of  Oriental  Languages,  by  J.  H.  DeForest.  Feb- 
ruary, 1909. 

16.  America  and  the  New  Diplomacy,  by  James  Brown  Scott.  March,  1909. 

17.  The  Delusion  of  Militarism,  by  Charles  E.  Jefferson.  April,  1909. 

18.  The  Causes  of  War,  by  Elihu  Root.  May,  1909. 

19.  The  United  States  and  China,  by  Wei-ching  Yen.  June,  1909. 

20.  Opening  Address  at  the  Lake  Mohonk  Conference  on  International  Arbi- 
tration, by  Nicholas  Murray  Butler.  July,  1909. 

21.  Journalism  and  International  Affairs,  by  Edward  Cary.  August,  1909. 

22.  Influence  of  Commerce  in  the  Promotion  of  International  Peace,  by  John 
Ball  Osborne.  September,  icog. 

23.  The  United  States  and  Spain,  by  Martin  Hume.  October,  1909. 

24.  The  American  Public  School  as  a Factor  in  International  Conciliation,  by 
Myra  Kelly.  November,  1909. 

25.  Cecil  Rhodes  and  His  Scholars  as  Factors  in  International  Conciliation, 
by  F.  J.  Wylie.  December,  1900. 

26.  The  East  and  the  Wesc,  by  Seth  Low.  January,  1910. 

27.  The  Moral  Equivalent  of  War,  by  William  James.  February,  1910. 

28.  International  Unity,  by  Philander  C.  Knox.  March,  1910. 

The  United  States  and  Australia,  by  Percival  R.  Cole.  March,  1910. 

29.  The  United  States  and  Germany,  by  Karl  Von  Lewinski.  April,  1910. 

30.  The  United  States  and  Mexico,  by  James  Douglas.  May,  1910. 

3T.  The  International  Duty  of  the  United  States  and  Great  Britain,  by  Edwin 
D.  Mead.  June,  1910. 

Opening  Address  at  the  Lake  Mohonk  Conference  on  International  Arbi- 
tration, by  Nicholas  Murray  Butler.  June,  1910. 

32.  An  Economic  View  of  War  and  Arbitration,  by  John  B.  Clark,  LL.D. 
July,  1910. 

33.  Peace  Versus  War : The  President’s  Solution,  by  Andrew  Carnegie. 
August,  1910. 

34.  Conciliation  through  Commerce  and  Industry  in  South  America,  by 
Charles  M.  Pepper.  September,  1910. 

A small  edition  of  a monthly  bibliography  of  articles  having  to 
do  with  international  matters  is  also  published  and  distributed  to 
libraries,  magazines  and  newspapers. 

Up  to  the  limit  of  the  editions  printed,  any  one  of  the  above  will 
be  sent  postpaid  upon  receipt  of  a request  addressed  to  the  Secretary 
of  the  American  Association  for  International  Conciliation,  Post 
Office  Sub-Station  84,  New  York,  N.  Y. 


Executive  Committee 


Nicholas  Murray  Butler 
Richard  Bartholdt 
Lyman  Abbott 
James  Speyer 


Stephen  Henry  Olin 
Seth  Low 
Robert  A.  Franks 
Paul  Morton 


George 


Blumenthal 


COUNCIL  OF  DIRECTION  OF  THE 
AMERICAN  ASSOCIATION  FOR  INTERNATIONAL  CONCILIATION 


Lyman  Abbott,  New  York. 

Charles  Francis  Adams,  Boston. 

Edwin  A.  Alderman,  Charlottesville,  Va. 
Charles  H.  Ames,  Boston,  Mass. 

Richard  Bartholdt,  M.  C.,  St.  Louis,  Mo. 
George  Blumenthal,  New  York. 

Clifton  R.  Breckenridge,  Fort  Smith,  Arkansas. 
William  J.  Bryan,  Lincoln,  Neb. 

T.  E.  Burton,  Cleveland,  Ohio. 

Nicholas  Murray  Butler,  New  York. 

Andrew  Carnegie,  New  York. 

Edward  Cary,  New  York. 

Joseph  H.  Choate,  New  York. 

Richard  H.  Dana,  Boston,  Mass. 

Arthur  L.  Dasher,  Macon,  Ga. 

Horace  E.  Deming,  New  York. 

Charles  W.  Eliot,  Cambridge,  Mass. 

John  W.  Foster,  Washington,  D.  C. 

Robert  A.  Franks,  Orange,  N.  J. 

John  Arthur  Greene,  New  York. 

James  M.  Greenwood,  Kansas  City,  Mo. 

Franklin  H.  Head,  Chicago,  III. 

William  J.  Holland,  Pittsburgh,  Pa. 

Hamilton  Holt,  New  York. 

James  L.  Houghteling,  Chicago,  III. 

David  Starr  Jordan,  Stanford  University,  Cal. 

J.  H.  Kirkland,  Nashville,  Tenn. 

Adolph  Lewisohn,  New  York. 

Seth  Low,  New  York. 

Clarence  H.  Mackay,  New  York. 

Theodore  Marburg,  Baltimore,  Md. 

Brander  Matthews,  New  York. 

Silas  McBee,  New  York. 

George  B.  McClellan,  New  York. 

W.  W.  Morrow,  San  Francisco,  Cal. 

Paul  Morton,  New  York. 

Levi  P.  Morton,  New  York. 

Stephen  H.  Olin,  New  York. 

A,  V.  V.  Raymond,  Buffalo,  N.  Y. 

Ira  Remsen,  Baltimore,  Md. 

James  Ford  Rhodes,  Boston,  Mass. 

Howard  J.  Rogers,  Albany,  N.  Y. 

Elihu  Root,  Washington,  D.  C. 

J.  G.  Schurman,  Ithaca,  N,  Y. 

Isaac  N.  Seligman,  New  York. 

F.  J.  V.  Skiff,  Chicago,  III. 

William  M.  Slqane,  New  York. 

Albert  K.  Smiley,  Lake  Mohonk,  N.  Y. 

James  Speyer,  New  York. 

Oscar  S.  Straus,  Washington,  D.  C. 

Mrs.  Mary  Wood  Swift,  Berkeley,  Cal. 

George  W.  Taylor,  M.  C.,  Demopolis,  Ala. 

O.  H.  Tittman,  Washington,  D.  C. 

W.  H.  Tolman,  New  York. 

Benjamin  Truebloqd,  Boston,  Mass. 

Edward  Tuck,  Paris,  France. 

William  D.  Wheelwright,  Portland,  Ore. 


CONCILIATION  INTERNATIONALE 
ng  Rue  de  la  Tour,  Paris,  France 
President  Fondateur,  Baron  D’Estournelles  de  Constant 
Member  Hague  Court,  Senator 

Honorary  Presidents  : Berthelot  and  Leon  Bourgeois,  Senators 
Secretaries  General : A.  Metin  and  Jules  Rais 
Treasurer:  Albert  Kahn 


